Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Singapore Airlines "evacuation"

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Singapore Airlines "evacuation"

Old 28th Jun 2016, 09:38
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 100
Singapore Airlines "evacuation"

Hi all, having seen the pictures of the "wing on fire" of Singapore airlines recently, i am shocked to hear that the crew elected to have the pax wait onboard for 5 minutes while the fire services arrived, and another 5-10 minutes while the fire was being put out.

Would there be any reason why the crew elected not to evacuate, rather than take their chances of having the fire spread? I know this is a very "what if" scenario and we may not be aware of all the facts, but if you were in the same situation, would you have evacuated the aircraft?
aviator's_anonymous is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 09:49
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 2,876
You mean in the same situation, but as you stated, not knowing all the facts?
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 09:51
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,738
Please lock this.

There is a thread already.

Flight sim pilots giving us their opinion is getting tedious.

Have a nice day.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 09:54
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 167
The perfect evac is a co ordinated event between the Captain and the Fire Commander on the outside. These guys are trying to control the fire with foam, while the pilots will shutdown all engines/apu and prepare for an evac.

From the cockpit it is very difficult to gauge the extent of the fire, so reliance on input from the fire commander/cabin crew is an important part of building up the picture to evac or not.

The initial response team may not have the manpower to fight the fire and manage the passengers, so it is a lot easier to manage the situation without distressed passengers coming down the slides and running around without being marshalled into a safe area.

That being said, if things are getting hot/smoky in the cabin, there may not be the time to wait for more manpower on the ground.

I was once shown an old movie by the RFS of a DC10 in the USA with a similar uncontrollable fire, the skipper was pleading to evac the pax, the fire commander kept asking to wait so they could control the fire and get more personnel, they eventually did evac, the aircraft continued to burn, and it was a very successful outcome (except for the aircraft, it continued to burn for 20mins)
Roj approved is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2016, 21:37
  #5 (permalink)  

Victim of a bored god

Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,373
The results - no loss of life or serious injuries - confirm the aircraft's commander made the correct decision under the circumstances that existed at that time and in that incident.
tail wheel is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 09:34
  #6 (permalink)  

Nunc est bibendum
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,177
G'day Tailwheel,

Fair enough on the locking of the SQ evac thread on Dunnunda but I just wanted to pick you up on your statement that no injuries meant the right decision had been made.

That's false logic. The outcome doesn't determine whether the decision making process and indeed the ultimate decision was the right one. There are plenty of examples where great decision making processes have resulted in people still dying (though possibly less than would have otherwise) and poor decision making resulting in a favourable outcome.

My concern is that your comments on the thread will result in some younger pilots will accepting your authority as fact when it's not a true statement at all.

If you want to lock the thread then by all means do so but your editorial comment is incorrect in principle and may turn out to be incorrect once the investigation is complete.

A great outcome doesn't mean a good decision.

Thanks for re-opening the thread so I could say my bit.
Keg is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 09:43
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Kubin Island
Posts: 66
+1, An ill considered contribution from the moderator, please remove or correct. Very very lucky the results weren't serious loss of life and serious injuries.
Kubin rock climber is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 10:34
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 830
If you want to lock the thread then by all means do so but your editorial comment is incorrect in principle and may turn out to be incorrect once the investigation is complete.
My thoughts exactly! I'm pleased I wasn't the only one that was a little alarmed by that statement.
Cloud Cutter is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 11:01
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: melbourne
Posts: 28
Doesn't look like it took 5mins for Emergency Services


Looks more like 1 minute from when the aircraft stop moving to when the first truck is spraying foam.
doug606 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 12:11
  #10 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,361
In fact, Post #5 should be deleted!
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 12:57
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 7
Flawed Logic

The decision to evacuate is made by the Commander or next in command in the event of incapacitation, extending all the way down the chain to the most junior cabin crew member in the extreme case of a major accident.

With a wing on fire, it really is a no brainer. The logic (as has been reported) that the crew considered that fuel spilt on the ground and possibly igniting could have been a hazard to passengers, does not make any sense. The by far greater danger was the very real possibility that the whole aircraft could have exploded in an inferno at any time. It is not too different to the flawed logic used by the Australian B747 crew in Bangkok that "no fuel vapours could be detected in the cabin" as an excuse not to evacuate, when clearly the No. 3 engine had separated from the wing and fuel, hydraulic fluid and oil could have been discharging.

The passengers must have been terrified that they would be burned alive. That alone is a reason to allow them the option of getting out on the other side of the aircraft, despite the wind conditions and the possibility of having to dodge a few patches of burning fuel after coming down the escape slides.

The other consideration, is that they overflew a few perfectly acceptable airports on the way back, when in fact Boeing recommend to "Land at the nearest suitable airport" in the event of an engine failure on the B777.

Why did the cabin crew not use their initiative? Watching passengers take video for uploading to You Tube when at anytime they could have been in an inferno just makes no sense.
BB97 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2016, 22:44
  #12 (permalink)  

Victim of a bored god

Join Date: Jan 1996
Location: Australia
Posts: 6,373
Hi Keg. Thanks for your comments.

I locked the thread principally because:

1. It is not within our forum area, Australia, NZ and the Pacific. PPRuNe does not want "parallel threads" running in various regional forums. The thread rightfully belongs in the Asian forum.

Rumour & News: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ches-fire.html

Fragrant Harbour: http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbo...-sia-fire.html

2. I anticipated the usual arm chair expert in love with the sound of their own keyboard would probably post dumb or irrelevant comment or theory.

3. Until FULL details are known following the investigation, no one is really qualified to comment. Derogatory comments are appearing in the media about the delay in evacuating the aircraft; whilst perhaps unusual, there may have been excellent safety reasons for that decision, made by those most qualified to judge at the time.

I'll leave all comments posted in this thread so people may make their own decisions.
tail wheel is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2016, 02:58
  #13 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: In da Big Smoke
Posts: 2,348
After watching that video above I cannot fathom why you would sit there with a fire like that. Even if there was fuel on the ground on the opposite side surely you could at least find one clear exit to get everyone out of.

After seeing that video I think it's a case of good luck rather than good management.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2016, 04:33
  #14 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,710
I think you broke #2 yourself Taily.......
ACMS is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2016, 07:26
  #15 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Downunder
Posts: 17

Having flown for a number of airlines,there are two issues here as I see it which seem to conflict with their SOP's.Firstly,the report said he was two hours out after departure and secondly,while there was an obvious raging fire, the pilot elected not to evacuate.
Company Ops manuals that I am familiar with,all state; in the event of fire or possible fire,land at nearest suitable airport.
Also, with an on ground fire, evacuate the aircraft.I have never seen where it says you should establish communication with the fire chief. You would have already advised the tower of that problem before bringing the aircraft to a stop,giving them the relevant information and your intentions.
They were lucky the fire or smoke hadn't entered the cabin or it would have been a possible different outcome.
By the way, I flew for that airline many years back and would be interested to see if they have developed any new procedures with respect to these emergencies.
This is about rumour and news which is good and even though some posts may be incorrect,you can learn a lot.
As for the moderator, he is entitled to comment as well,but he is no more the authority than others who submit a post.
Sicofit is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2016, 06:17
  #16 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 46
Posts: 1,049
They should've evacuated
mattyj is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2016, 23:05
  #17 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: S.O.E.
Posts: 121

......Evacuate, Evacuate, Evacuate
Dale Hardale is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2016, 02:30
  #18 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: I'm a wanderer
Age: 39
Posts: 394
I like how everyone here thinks they know better than the guys up the front.

Right now:
  • We don't know what the discussion was on the flight deck
  • We don't know what the discussion was between the flight deck and the fire fighters
  • We don't know what the discussion was between the flight deck and the passenger cabin

Until we do, then we can't do any second guessing. Everybody got off the aircraft alive and uninjured, the pilots will have their chance to explain their decision making process to the investigators.
empacher48 is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2016, 03:06
  #19 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: S.O.E.
Posts: 121
I would be surprised if firefighters told the Captain that everyone should remain on board with a fire of such clearly significant magnitude.

Ultimately, it is the Captain's responsibility to determine if an evacuation should be completed.

It will be interesting to see if a true account of the flight crew decision making process ever reaches the light of day given the location of the event and the company.

Too bad lah
Dale Hardale is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2016, 05:16
  #20 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 2,378
If an evacuation had been ordered, no one would have questioned the decision to vacate a burning aircraft, and even if there had been injuries there wouldn't be a single post on the entire message board suggesting they should have stayed onboard.

Try to imagine how the Captain must be questioning himself at the moment over his decision.
Metro man is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.